> the description here still steals too much from the multifunction> quirk.

description was just moved (and needs to be rewrited) since the orignal idea wasjust to extend quirk for all ThunderX family which has that limitation.

Would the following be more suitable here:

"The Cavium downstream ports doesn't advertise their ACS capability registers.However, the RTL internally implements similar protection as if ACS had completion redirection,forwarding and validation features enabled." ?

> Multifunction devices can often support ACS with unimplemented> capabilities, which indicate that the device does not support the> behavior described by that capability bit. However, downstream ports> are required to implement certain ACS capabilities if they implement> ACS at all. So the code is actually asserting that the hardware> implements *and* enables equivalent ACS functionality for these flags.

Yes it is. The hardware doesn't advertise ACS caps which is desing limitation,however it implements similar functionality to ACS provided flags which allows code to assert this.